My Mum parked on a kerb and got the attached ticket. She made an innocent mistake and having researched it, we now know that you may not park on a kerb in a London Borough unless expressly permitted to do so.

However, the contravention code 24 has been used and I wonder if I can appeal on a technicality. Having gone through the full list of codes, I can't find one that seems to correspond to this offence but having said that, code 24 seems incorrect as there were no marked bays to park outside of. It was a standard kerb with no other markings.

There are no photos at any stage of the process. I propose a simple response:

Dear Sirs,

Re PCN XXXXX, Reg No XXXXXContravention Code 24, Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space

Please accept this message as a challenge to the PCN.

I contest that the above stated contravention did not occur. Please review any images taken by the enforcement officer and if you disagree with this challenge, please provide those images to me within your response.

The vehicle was parked on the footway as signage allowed while any bay markings were non existent and thus impossible to comply with.

Not sure, my feeling is defend against the allegation, let them be the ones to throw other factors into the mix

I meant as an additive.Not enough to say that it didn't occur, needs to say why.

IE I was looking for a parking space, sw cars parked wheels up and saw a sign allowing same.I looked for marked bays but they were non existent, removed or wornGiven the lack of markings I could not comply

Thanks for all the inputs so far. I am sure your time is worth much more than the £30 it will cost to pay the fine but you are clearly all people of principle, as am I!

Dancing Dad: I will try to embellish a bit in the appeal, but I suspect the response to 'I couldn't comply' would be 'well don't park there then!' and 'by the way there were marked bays further down the road'. There were no other cars parked there.

hcandersen: Your appetite for photographic evidence s is insatiable, and somewhat commendable. However, as I have said previously, any images provided today would present the exact same scenario that can already be seen from the GSV from July 2016 which indeed shows no marked bays in the area the car was parked. I believe the quirk you describe has occurred, namely the CEO has issued a 24 when he should have issued a 62 as identified by PASTMYBEST.

The PCN contravention relates to not parking wholly within the bays of a parking place. However, as can be seen in the GSV snapshot there aren't any parking place restrictions at the location and therefore the PCN has been issued in error and must be cancelled.

The PCN contravention relates to not parking wholly within the bays of a parking place. However, as can be seen in the GSV snapshot there aren't any parking place restrictions at the location and therefore the PCN has been issued in error and must be cancelled.